UPSC Civil Service Exam : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Of Candidates Who Were Denied EWS Reservation Due To Error In Certificates

The Supreme Court on Tuesday(September 5) reserved its judgment on a petition filed by UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) candidates who were denied the benefits of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation category in the 2022 Civil Service Examination due to an error in their certificates.

The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing a plea by candidates who challenged the action of UPSC(respondent) in treating them as General category candidates after declaring results as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. The bench had issued notice on the petition on August 8.

Advocate Naresh Kaushik, appearing on behalf of UPSC, began by pointing out that the EWS reservation was notified on January 19, 2019, and further clarified by January 31, 2019, through a notification that stated, "benefits can be availed upon production of a certificate."

The petitioner represented by Advocate K. Parmeshwar argued “Office memorandum 2019 doesn't say possession of the certificate is required. I am poor by virtue of my "status" and not my certificate.”

Justice JK Maheshwari questioned him, “Assuming your argument is correct, when you apply, you [have to] show the proof that I am EWS.”

The counsel responded by highlighting that “If factum and proof are the same, it ignores the distinction made in 7 judgments saying the proof is different from the fact of status.” Moreover, there is a catena of judgments that have held that “production rules or proof are directory and not mandatory.”

Justice K.V. Vishwanathan then expressed concern about disregarding the rules and questioned, ”None of the judgments was based on rules. How do we ignore the rule? In those cases, government accepted it and issued a directive. If UPSC issues a directive here, our job will be easier.”

Advocate Parmeshwar argued that the procedure outlined in the rules should be considered as a directory rather than mandatory. He cited the case of Dolly Chanda which had held that “there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof.” He also referred to various HC judgments that emphasized the distinction between the fact of eligibility and the proof of eligibility.

He expressed concern that “If status and proof are considered the same, it'll do grave injustice to the candidates. It'll prefer a technical/rigid view over merit.”

Justice K.V. Vishwanathan raised a critical question of how to bind the authority and where to draw the line in such cases. He further stressed that “the right crystallizes based on memorandum upon certificate. otherwise, it doesn't bind them.”

The counsel responded, “I’ve been considered as EWS from prelims to Mains and Mains till the interview.”

Justice Viswanathan anticipated that if this was accepted, it would give rise to other unintended consequences. He posed a hypothetical question “What if you reach the secretary, UPSC just 1 day before saying this certificate pertains to 2021 as required? And you say I am only producing proof now. How do we handle this”?

Advocate Parmeshwar responded, “The allegation against me is non-uploading of the certificate in DAF-1.”

The Judge further enquired that as of 22.2.2022, which was the last date of submission, the incorrect certificate was uploaded.

Advocate Parmeshwar responded- “Yes, but it was the mistake of the authorities.”

Thereafter, Advocate Preetika Dwivedi, representing the petitioner, Divya, raised questions regarding the nature of the Civil Services Examination (CSE) rules. She argued that these rules neither fall under Article 309 nor under statute; instead, they are only administrative directions. She emphasized the distinction between recruitment rules and these instructions, asserting that CSE rules primarily serve as guidelines for conducting the examination.

Justice Viswanathan in response, highlighted that the rules governing the examination process had already been established stating “The rules of the game have been chalked out”

He further asked her to go through Rules 27 and 28 which deal with “Eligibility for Availing Reservation” and asked how do we get around these rules?

“Rule 28: Candidates seeking reservation/relaxation benefits available for SC/ST/OBC/EWS/PwBD/Ex-servicemen must ensure that they are entitled to such reservation/relaxation as per eligibility prescribed in the Rules/Notice. They should also be in possession of all the requisite certificates in the prescribed format in support of their claim as stipulated in the Rules/Notice for such benefits by the closing date of the application for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination.”

She submitted that if this is treated not as a statutory rule but only like an administrative direction then it’ll be akin to Advertisements issued in Dolly Chanda’s case which would apply here.

Subsequently, Advocate Kaushik for UPSC was called upon to provide a brief response on the acceptance of certificates. Then ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared and stated that she did not have the instructions regarding the nature of the rules at hand but assured the court that she would obtain them.

The bench directed them to file submissions on or before the upcoming Monday.

Advocate Preetika Dwivedi made a plea, requesting the court to consider exercising Article 142 in extraordinary circumstances to which Advocate Kaushik responded “ Results are out, recommendations have already been made. there's no vacancy for EWS.“

Justice JK Maheshwari replied: “We'll see.”

The petitioners submitted that they were successful candidates who had scored more than the EWS cutoff marks. They further submitted that the respondent changed their category after the declaration of results by issuing a letter on May 24th and May 30th, 2023 without giving any reason. They contended that this is an arbitrary, discriminatory violation of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

They submitted that they possessed the requisite income and asset certificate for the financial year 2020-21, as mandated by the respondent's guidelines. These certificates, they maintained, were furnished well within the stipulated deadline of February 22nd, 2022.

On 30th January 2023, the respondent intimated to them that their EWS certificates wrongly mention the year 2021-22. So, they should submit the original certificate with the correct financial year 2020-21 at the time of the interview.

The competent authority issued a clarification that there was a clerical error and the certificate should be read as Financial Year 2020-21. At the time of the interview, they submitted their certificates along with this clarification. The results were announced where they were not selected

Case title: Divya v. Union of India| Vimlok Tiwari v. UPSC| Ved Prakash Singh v. UPSC

Citation: W.P.(C) No. 724/2023| W.P.(C) No. 705/2023| W.P.(C) No. 764/2023

For petitioners: AOR Preetika Dwivedi(for Divya) and Advocate Parmeshwar along with AOR Tanya Shree(Vimlok Tiwari v. UOI)